Filed: Aug. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 09, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD G. ANDREWS , District Judge . Presently before me is Medical Defendants' 1 Motion to Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint that Violate the Court's Order and Improperly Name Additional Parties as Defendants in this Case. (D.I. 96). The Parties have fully briefed the issue. (D.I. 96, 104, 111). On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Angelo Clark filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") that names six new defendants: Connections Community Support Programs, Inc., Lezle
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD G. ANDREWS , District Judge . Presently before me is Medical Defendants' 1 Motion to Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint that Violate the Court's Order and Improperly Name Additional Parties as Defendants in this Case. (D.I. 96). The Parties have fully briefed the issue. (D.I. 96, 104, 111). On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Angelo Clark filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") that names six new defendants: Connections Community Support Programs, Inc., Lezley..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge.
Presently before me is Medical Defendants'1 Motion to Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint that Violate the Court's Order and Improperly Name Additional Parties as Defendants in this Case. (D.I. 96). The Parties have fully briefed the issue. (D.I. 96, 104, 111).
On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Angelo Clark filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") that names six new defendants: Connections Community Support Programs, Inc., Lezley Sexton, Stefanie Streets, Stephanie Evans-Mitchell, Carol Vodvarka, and Carol Vandrunen. (D.I. 92). Mr. Clark filed the SAC in response to my May 14, 2019 Order granting him leave to amend Count I, violation of the Eighth Amendment by placing Mr. Clark in the solitary housing unit, as to Medical Defendants. (D.I. 91).
Medical Defendants object to the newly amended complaint, arguing that the addition of new defendants is outside the scope of my Order. (D.I. 96). They are correct. I did not intend, or expect, to allow Mr. Clark to add new parties to this action. It was certainly not apparent from Mr. Clark's earlier briefing that he had any intention of making such a change. I took at face value his statement that "recently discovered facts show[ed] the Medical Defendants' participation in the decision making at issue." (D.I. 86 at 7). I understood Mr. Clark as referencing existing Defendants, not later-to-be-named individuals.2
Nonetheless, despite being more than two years old, this case is in the early stages. No trial date has been set and discovery is ongoing. Thus, I find that it is in the interest of justice to allow Plaintiff to add the new defendants. My decision is without prejudice to the newly named defendants raising the statute of limitations issue mentioned in the briefing. (See D.I. 96 at 3 n.5).
Thus, Medical Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint that Violate the Court's Order and Improperly Name Additional Parties as Defendants in this Case (D.I. 96) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
